Revenge Porn, Revealed

The Rep. Joe Barton mess provided an early opportunity to consider whether the voices demanding criminalization of revenge porn were honorable or not. This comes at a good time, in light of the push in Congress to create a federal crime of it, backed by invariably teary-eyed Congressvictim Jackie Speier, and take down Section 230 safe harbor in the process.

At the Washington Examiner,* revenge porn activists were asked about the Barton scenario, and the responses were exceptionally revealing.

Bekah Wells of Women Against Revenge Porn, speaking under an initial impression the congressman was victimized, said that “Joe Barton has nothing to be ashamed of. Leave him alone.”

“I don’t care if his penis has a Bob Dylan song tattooed on it. It’s not newsworthy,” Wells said. “The media needs to stop with this stuff. And I hope Joe sues the shit out of TMZ.”

Wells was one of the earliest victims of revenge porn, and became one of the staunchest advocates for its criminalization. As her reaction shows, her support of the cause is grounded in integrity, applying to male or female, to the weak or powerful. The same is true for another pioneer, Charlotte Laws, whose daughter was an early victim.

“Barton’s apology obviously stems from his reelection bid and his reputation as a ‘family values’ politician, but he should make it clear that the person who distributed the photo is the actual culprit,” said Laws, whose daughter was victimized by hackers.

“TMZ and other websites should not repost the photo,” she added. “Barton is entitled to have a private life and to exchange compromising photos with a girlfriend if he and the woman so chooses.”

Whether one agrees with the law they support, or their willingness to sacrifice the First Amendment to accomplish the goal of eradicating revenge porn, one can’t help but admire and appreciate the integrity with which they apply their beliefs.

And then the other shoe falls.

University of Miami law professor Mary Anne Franks, an architect of state and federal legislation against revenge porn, said she had yet to draw firm conclusions,** but it’s possible that Barton himself may be the criminal, not the person who shared the image.

“Rep. Barton may not have had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the image and may in fact have engaged in unlawful behavior in sending the image,” she said.

“Sending an unsolicited, explicit image of oneself to another person is a kind of indecent exposure,” she said. “It could be argued that a person who does this has no more expectation of privacy than a person dropping his pants in front of a subway passenger.”

“What is more,” Franks added, “if these photos were not only unsolicited but unwanted, sending them may constitute civil or criminal harassment.”

Yup, she said it. Mary Anne Franks just contradicted everything she’s ever said about revenge porn. It’s not that what she says here isn’t fair, but when the victims were women, she never entertained any of these possibilities. Indeed, she viciously, if childishly, attacked any suggestion that exposed the fallacy of her arguments. Yet here she is, arguing the opposite when the victim is Joe Barton.

Women send men unsolicited images. Yet never has she conceded that women may be at fault for doing so. Barton may not have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” nor may women who send naked images of themselves. Barton may have indecently exposed himself. So too women who sent their images.

The word hypocrisy seems appropriate here, except that the word is far too sanitary to capture the depth of Franks’ disingenuousness. Nor can she take comfort in Hanlon’s Law, as her arguments can no longer be forgiven as stupidity rather than malice. She obviously knows better, as she’s managed to whip out arguments when the victim was someone she despised.

By contending that Barton is not merely a victim, but a perpetrator, when the only material distinction is that he’s male rather than female, reveals that Franks is venal. Sure, she’s a hypocrite. She’s been lying all along, as was obvious to anyone with knowledge of law. Her lack of intellectual honesty is manifest.

Meet Mary Anne Franks. She’s full of shit, a hypocrite, and a danger to malleable minds. If there was ever any doubt, it is now gone. She is a venal human being. And even though she isn’t a lawyer, she teaches criminal law at the University of Miami Law School.

*Curiously, writer Steven Nelson only asked women involved in advocacy to criminalize revenge porn, rather than criminal defense or constitutional lawyers who challenged its criminalization or even Lee Rowland of the ACLU.

**This is a common ploy, much beloved in academia, to enable someone to say what they want while maintaining an escape hatch so they aren’t held accountable for their words.

You assume too much. A regular reader here informed me that he would never read again, and would dedicate his life to supporting Mary Anne, because of the horrors of revenge porn that were far worse than any impairment to the Constitution, harm done to innocents or lies she needed to tell to accomplish this overarching, worthy goal. You take naked selfies?

Comments are closed.

Scott H. Greenfield

Nothing in this blog constitutes
legal advice. This is free.
Legal advice you have to pay for.EmailTwitter: @ScottGreenfield

What Do You Think?

I allow thoughtful comments, but please keep yours civil and respectful. There are rules here. I reserve the right to delete or edit any/all comments. Links are not permitted in comments and will be deleted. If you don't like the rules, comment elsewhere. Volenti non fit injuria. SHG